Men’s Health Workshop in Copenhagen – January 2026

Focus of the Instruction

The training focused on a planned two-day workshop on clinical men’s health and shockwave therapy. I emphasized the differences between technologies, energy delivery, and practical patient selection rather than presenting a universal protocol. When I teach, my goal is for participants to be able to explain why a particular treatment is chosen, who it is suitable for, and when a different approach is more appropriate.

Why this is relevant to a patient’s journey

A key point in my teaching is that “shockwave” is not a single, uniform treatment. Electrohydraulic, electromagnetic, and piezoelectric systems produce and deliver energy differently. Therefore, the focus should be on tissue, target, energy, focal zone, and patient selection—not merely on the name of the technology or a standard protocol.

For patients, this means in practice that technology should come after the assessment—not before. A treatment may be well-documented at the population level and still be a poor choice for an individual if the cause of their symptoms is different.

From Education to Clinical Quality

The professional benefits go both ways. I contribute my clinical experience and teaching expertise across various shockwave systems, while the participants bring in different workflows, case studies, and perspectives. This provides a more robust foundation for asking the critical questions that should also be asked before beginning a patient’s treatment.

Another important element is managing expectations. In areas such as sexual function, chronic pain, and incontinence, two patients with the same diagnosis may have vastly different causes and prognoses. Therefore, it is important to be precise about which problem is being addressed, how progress is measured, and when a lack of response should lead to a reassessment rather than simply continuing with the same treatment.

I also emphasize the importance of distinguishing between mechanism, clinical evidence, and marketing. The fact that a technology can biologically affect tissue does not mean that it has a documented effect on all indications. Conversely, clinical evidence may be relevant without being directly transferable between different devices, doses, or patient groups. This distinction is crucial both in teaching and in conversations with patients.

For each individual patient, professional expertise should be conveyed with clarity: What do we know? What is likely? What is uncertain? And what is the next rational step? This is the part of the patient journey that is often missing when patients encounter many different treatment options online. My goal is for the examination and explanation to make the choice more manageable before a decision is made about a course of treatment.

It is the professional connection between education and clinical practice that I want these educational activities to demonstrate: not a promise of results, but experience in critically evaluating technology, following the evidence, and translating it into more precise decisions for each individual patient.

Read more: Diagnosis and treatment of erectile dysfunction · Men’s Health workshops for healthcare professionals · The evidence for shockwave therapy

Documentation: This article is based on publicly available event materials and/or LinkedIn posts. Sources: LinkedIn posts